ELECTRIC AUXILIARIES ON MERCHANT SHIPS. ' 177 



Failure of steam to flow through pipes I do not believe can be considered as a very seri- 

 ous defect of steam machinery, and any failure of boiler pressure would affect both types in 

 the same way. 



Referring to the cost of insurance, the fact is that this is somewhat greater because the 

 first cost is greater. 



Referring to the other savings referred to on page 170, there appears to be no sound 

 basis for these assumptions, which I should say were very doubtful. This also applies to the 

 total saving of $55,190 on page 170, which is also rendered inaccurate by the engine-room 

 comparison as mentioned above. 



There is no doubt a substantial saving in fuel in port, and a minor one at sea. There 

 may also be a slight saving in supplies, repairs, etc. Altogether, however, I do not believe 

 the investment will pay. 



Steam deck machinery is without question inefificient, and there are large heat losses in 

 piping, etc. However, it is a great deal lighter and cheaper and so far appears to have the ad- 

 vantage for steam cargo vessels. 



However, for motor ship and passenger vessels the conditions and considerations are 

 different, and for such vessels, especially the former, electrical auxiliaries seem to be the more 

 suitable. In motor ships no main boilers are available, as in steam vessels ; and in passenger 

 vessels the considerations are often other than economic. 



In general, although electrical auxiliaries, and especially those outside of the engine room, 

 are generally preferable mechanically and from an engineering standpoint, they cannot be 

 used in all cases because of the economic requirements. I may say in closing that reduction in 

 weight and first cost would greatly accelerate the use of electric auxiliaries on shipboard. 



Mr. G. A. Pierce, Visitor: — The author is to be congratulated upon the clear and con- 

 cise statement in paragraph one of his paper. 



The equipment of modem motor ships answers the question of electrical auxiliaries as 

 far as reliability and economy are concerned, and it is to be regretted that we are compelled 

 to refer to foreign-built ships for the principal data of their performance. No less than sixty- 

 six of one type are in successful operation and foreign yards are building motor ships today 

 in greater number than our combined effort of all classes. The motor ship with steam auxilia- 

 ries is a failure, as was proven in the case of the S. S. California. This was the wrong ap- 

 plication of an otherwise perfectly good auxiliary, as steam auxiliaries in many instances 

 are to be preferred to electrical. 



Paragraph 4 does not appear consistent with the remainder of the paper in endeavoring 

 to establish operating economies by the use of electrical auxiliaries, as greater economy can 

 be realized by the use of Diesel prime movers for generating current than by the use of elec- 

 trical auxiliaries in place of steam, as the fuel for the Diesel engine would cost only one- 

 third of that of the steam turbine. The adoption of electrical auxiliaries will involve trained 

 men, the handicap mentioned in connection with the Diesel, and it is my opinion that at no 

 remote date licensed engineers will be required to be familiar with steam, oil and electrical 

 machinery, and there are, no doubt, many instances today of cargo ships which would not 

 only warrant the expense of additional machinery and personnel but would show a substan- 

 tial saving, and on the basis of the author's conclusions three times as much. 



Referring to paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, relative to the cost of carrying cargo, the answer 

 is not alone in electrical auxiliaries, as that cannot be a deciding feature, but in the motor ship 

 which includes electrical auxiliaries. 



